The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on Saturday decided
a curious point of law in regard to the patria potestas. A certain Mr. Smart, of Ontario, was hopelessly addicted to habits of intemperance, and his wife, a lady of means, therefore left him, taking her children with her. Mr. Smart upon this sued for a writ of habeas corpus in re- spect of the children. The various Courts to which the case had previously gone, held that Mr. Smart was unfit to have the custody of his children, and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council had to decide whether he was not, in spite of this, in a position to assert his parental authority, and claim the children. The Courts in Ontario.are able to give the custody of a child under twelve to any person whose guardianship they think would be beneficial. Could they allow the children to be kept away from the father when they were over twelve ? The Judicial Committee happily decided that they could, believing that the modern feeling as to drunkenness renders habitual intemperance an offence important enough to be made the ground for disregarding the patria potestas. The decision was a wise one, and would doubtless be followed in England, though, as the limit of age during which the Court can appoint a guardian is nineteen, the need for such a decision is not likely to arise.
Previous page
